Drayton v. Charleston, County of et al

Filing 45

ORDER adopting in part 40 Report and Recommendation; granting 10 Motion to Dismiss. The Court GRANTS the partial Motion to Dismiss, DISMISSES the state torts claims as to Defendants Reiter and Fawcett, DISMISSES Defen dant Sheriff Cannon without prejudice, and DISMISSES Defendant Charleston County. The case will proceed on the constitutional excessive force claim against the individual defendants and the tort claims (negligence, gross negligence, wrongful death, and survivorship) against the Charleston County Sheriff's Office. Signed by Honorable Richard M Gergel on 8/13/2015.(ssam, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRlCT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

BEAUFORT DIVISION

Willison Drayton, as Personal
Representative of the Estate of
Darryl Drayton,
Plaintiff,

v.
County of Charleston, Charleston
County Sheriffs Office, J. Al Cannon,
Jr. in his capacity as Sheriff of the
Charleston County Sheriffs Office,
Levi Reiter, and William Fawcett,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil Action No. 2:14-3488-RMG

ORDER

---------------------------)

This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") of the
Magistrate Judge (Dkt. No. 40) recommending that this Court deny in part and grant in part the
Defendants' partial Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 10). The Court grants the partial Motion to
Dismiss.
Background

Plaintiff Willison Drayton, as personal representative of the estate of Darryl Drayton
(Decedent), alleges that deputies ofthe Charleston County Sheriffs Office used excessive force
upon Decedent while attempting to place Decedent under arrest and executed their duties in a
negligent, grossly negligent, willful, wanton, and reckless manner, and that the named
defendants are liable for the actions leading to Decedent's death under federal and state law.
According to the complaint, Defendants Reiter and Fawcett responded to a 911 call from a
residence in James Island in Charleston County, South Carolina on October 12,2013. (Dkt. No.
1 at 5). Upon their arrival, other deputies with the Charleston County Sheriffs office were on

the scene and had Decedent detained. (Id) The deputies utilized tasers in their attempt to
apprehend him, and he fled on foot and jumped a fence. (Id) Plaintiff's complaint alleges that
once Decedent jumped the fence, and while his back faced the deputies, Defendant Reiter and
Defendant Fawcett discharged their service weapons at Decedent and struck him with six bullets.

(Id). Decedent was pronounced dead at the scene as a result of the gunshot wounds. (Id.).
Plaintiff brings a constitutional claim against Defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 for use of excessive force during decedent's arrest under the Fourth and Fourteenth
Amendments to the Constitution. (Dkt. No.1 at 6-10). Additionally, Plaintiff brings state law
claims for negligence, gross negligence, and a claim for common law obstruction ofjustice.
Defendants filed a partial Motion to Dismiss on October 20, 2014 (Dkt. No. 10). Plaintiff filed a
response on November 17,2014 (Dkt. No. 21) and the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and
Recommendation on July 10, 2015 (Dkt. No. 40). Defendants filed objections to the R&R on
August 5, 2014 (Dkt. No. 44). Plaintiff has stipulated to dismissal of the obstruction ofjustice
claim. (Dkt. No. 21 at 4). The Court reviews the remaining claims, dismisses certain causes as to
certain defendants, and identifies four claims that are appropriate for further litigation.
Analysis

The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation
has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility for making a final determination remains with
this Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). The Court makes a de novo
determination of those portions of the R&R to which specific objection is made and may "accept,
reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate
judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l).

2

Defendants have filed a partial Motion to Dismiss, requesting that the state law causes of
action be dismissed as to the individual defendants, Levi Reiter and .William Fawcett, and that
the County of Charleston be dismissed entirely. (Dkt. No. 10-1). They also argue that because
Charleston County Sheriffs Office (CCSP) and J. Al Cannon, Jr. are essentially the same entity,
one or the other should be dismissed.
Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits the dismissal of an action if
the complaint fails "to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." Such a motion tests the
legal sufficiency of the complaint and "does not resolve contests surrounding the facts, the merits
of the claim, or the applicability of defenses.... Our inquiry then is limited to whether the
allegations constitute' a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is
entitled to relief.'" Republican Party ofN.C. v. Martin, 980 F.2d 943,952 (4th Cir. 1992)
(quotation marks and citation omitted). In a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the Court is obligated to
"assume the truth of all facts alleged in the complaint and the existence of any fact that can be
proved, consistent with the complaint's allegations." E. Shore Mkts., Inc. v. JD. Assocs. Ltd

P'ship, 213 F.3d 175, 180 (4th Cir. 2000).

1. South Carolina Tort Claims Act
The South Carolina Tort Claims Act (SCTCA) waives the sovereign immunity of state
agencies and entities for the purpose of allowing tort claims against those entities based on the
actions of their employees. The SCTCA specifies that "[i]n the event that the employee is
individually named, the agency or political subdivision for which the employee was acting must
be substituted as a party defendant." S. C. Code Ann. § 15-78-70(c). The statute covers
employee conduct insofar as it is not "outside the scope of his official duties or which constitutes
actual fraud, actual malice, intent to harm, or a crime involving moral turpitude." S.C. Code

3

Ann. § 15-78-60. Here, the complaint clearly alleges that Defendants Reiter and Fawcett were
both "at all times relevant hereto acting under color of state law and in the course and scope of
his duties as a deputy for Defendant Charleston County Sheriffs Office (CCSO) and Defendant
COC [County of Charleston]." (Dkt. No.1 at 3). Therefore, the only appropriate defendant for
the tort claims is the sheriff s office, and the SCTCA claims against Defendants Reiter and
Fawcett are accordingly dismissed.

2. South Carolina Tort Claims Act Claim Against Charleston County and the
Charleston County Sheriff's Office
Plaintiff s complaint names Charleston County as a defendant in the SCTCA claim on the
theory that it was the "agency or political subdivision for which the employee[ s]" were acting,
with the employees referring to Defendants Reiter and Fawcett. However, as Defendants point
out, the term "county sheriff' is, in South Carolina, a geographic description rather than a
political one. County sheriffs are not hired by, and are not answerable to, the counties that they
serve, but are rather elected in general elections. The sheriffs' offices were created by and are
governed by the State of South Carolina directly. See S.C. Code Ann. § 23-11-10 et seq.; § 4-9­
650. Therefore, the sheriffs office itself is the appropriate entity responsible for the acts of its
employees, and the state claims are properly levied against CCSO but not Charleston County.
The SCTCA claims against Charleston County are therefore dismissed, and the SCTCA claim
against CCSO remains. Since the parties' briefing did not address the appropriateness of
Charleston County as a Section 1983 defendant, the Court does not pass on the federal claims
against Charleston County at this time.

4

3. The Charleston County Sheriff's Office and J. AI Cannon, Jr. in His Official
Capacity
Official-capacity suits "generally represent only another way of pleading an action
against an entity of which an officer is an agent." Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 165-66
(1985). Therefore, Defendants are correct that Sheriff Cannon, in his official capacity, and
CCSO are essentially the same defendant, and the Court dismisses Sheriff Cannon without
prejudice.

Conclusion
The Court has reviewed the R&R, the full administrative record in this matter, the
relevant legal authorities, and Defendants' objections to the R&R. It GRANTS the partial
Motion to Dismiss, DISMISSES the state torts claims as to Defendants Reiter and Fawcett,
DISMISSES Defendant Sheriff Cannon without prejudice, and DISMISSES Defendant
Charleston County. The case will proceed on the constitutional excessive force claim against the
individual defendants and the tort claims (negligence, gross negligence, wrongful death, and
survivorship) against the Charleston County Sheriff s Office.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

Richard Mark Ge
United States District Court Judge
August 1.1 , 2015
Charleston, South Carolina

5